Put an icon for OpenOffice on the desktop. Don't call it open-office, just call it Office.
Sure, this will piss off 'lites, but so the fuck what? Elitists won't be using Lindows anyways: the person who's been using Macs and Windows all his/her life will, or who's never used an OS before.
On the desktop, put things like:
Office or Word Processor Spreadsheet Database Slideshow Presentation Creator E-Mail Internet Porn Music Player Movie Player File Sharing CD-Ripping/Burning...and other commonly used apps by home users
Or better yet, create a superior UI from the start. See some of my examples from my home page:
I disagree that they are different ways of looking at the same thing. The definition for FS is more narrow than that for OSS. The OSI considers some licenses (like the APSL) to be OSS, which the FSF does not consider to be FS. Thus, in there are some differences in the details of the matter too (though probably 90% of the licenses that are OSS are also FS).
Loosely speaking, Perens is right. For the most part (e.g., that 90%), they are different ways of looking at the same thing, one emphasizing freedom, the other business value. More strictly speaking, he is wrong.
Irrelevant of his obvious dislike of the FSF -- which I disagree with -- at least he knows the difference between FS and OSS. The original *imbecile* does not know that difference. Worse yet, he posted a top-level comment that will confuse many new users into thinking that FS and OSS are two different names for exactly the same thing.
Maybe so, but it produces a big fat zero for anything outside of x86. Nothing.
ICC developers have an unfair advantage over GCC developers, because they know x86 architecture inside out -- they make it. This does not mean that the comparisons between ICC and GCC are unfair because ICC is better.
What it does mean is that it is inappropriate to say "GCC sux0rs".
The term "Free Software" is better than "Open Source Software". Open Source has one obvious implication: that you can view the source. Free Software can be taken to mean either free as in speech, or free as in beer: at least there's a 50/50 chance someone will get it right off the bat. Aside from that, as the FSF has said, once the user understands "Free Software as in speech, not beer", s/he won't get it wrong again. Not so easy with OSS.
The FSF is not entirely happy with the term "Free Software", precisely because it's only 50/50. Some other potential names they could use -- e.g., Liberty Software -- are associated with political movements that the FSF does not agree with and are beyond it's scope. Libre Software would be appropriate, but it uses foreign words, which is confusing.
I suggested to RMS that the FSF use "Freedom Software". However, the FSF had apparently considered that as a superior solution, but decided that they couldn't use it, because Freedom Software is the trademarked name of a company that has nothing to do with Free Software. This is a tragic example of how trademark laws are bad for the public. The public would be done a real service if the FSF could call their software "Freedom Software", but trademark laws prevent it.
So, if you really value Free Software, you should work on two things: (1) Finding some way to invalidate the trademark on Freedom Software [look through legal case history, if you're a lawyer]; (2) Starting/contributing to an effort to pay Freedom Software to turn over their trademark to the FSF.
Something I forgot to mention. Despite the fact that both of these groups have slightly different ideologies, in real-world terms, they both agree -- for the most part -- on what licenses are acceptable, which means that individuals from the two movements can and do work together to accomplish common goals (as most of their goals are common).
It is rather like two different groups of individuals who support the right to choose regarding abortion. One group may support that right because of ideological reasons: they think women should be entitled to that choice. Another group may support that right because of practical reasons: they think that the effects of illegalizing it are harmful. In the vast majority of cases, both groups will agree with one another, and can work together to accomplish a common goal. It is called an incompletely theorized consensus. The Founding Father's had such in regards to their conception of privacy.
OSS is more about a development model than user and developer freedoms. The freedoms it ensures to the user and developers are geared towards that development model. See the OSI's Open Source Definition (OSD) (OSD).
Summarily, OSS is a superset of FS, FS a subset of OSS. Anything that is FS is also OSS; however, many things that are OSS are not FS. The FSD has a stricter definition than does the OSD, thus many licenses that the FSD deems too restrictive are acceptable under the OSD. For example, the OSI considers the APSL (Apple Public Software License) to be OSS, but the FSF does not consider the ASPL to be FS.
A relevant quote from the FSF's webpage:
The fundamental difference between the two movements is in their values, their ways of looking at the world. For the Open Source movement, the issue of whether software should be open source is a practical question, not an ethical one. As one person put it, ``Open source is a development methodology; free software is a social movement.'' For the Open Source movement, non-free software is a suboptimal solution. For the Free Software movement, non-free software is a social problem and free software is the solution.
How much does it cost to add an extra Intel 3GHz CPU to your personal desktop? Certainly not enough to make up the difference between the Dell's and Apple's 2CPU computer.
In terms of price/performance, x86's are still the best. You just need to add and extra CPU for ?300? bucks (I haven't kept up to date on CPU prcies). So, why would anyone who wants CPU-performance waste the money on a Mac?
All of this obsession with CPU-performance is pretty lame, in my opinion. My 1.1GHz is still plenty fast. More important than a fast CPU is a fast hard drive. Most wait-time is waiting for programs to load, since most ordinary uses of a computer aren't CPU-intensive. And of course RAM.
Spend your money getting faster hard-drives (e.g., 10,000rpm ATA-166 hard-drives) and faster RAM (e.g., DDR RAM).
If your a gamer, don't be fooled by the CPU-obsession. GPU's is where gaming performance is at. Getting a CPU twice as fast might increase your fps by 2 frames per ssecond -- for another $100 bucks. If you're a multi-media person, again, the graphics card (GPU) is where it's at. If you're a casual or amatuer, you can just get the gamer-line GPUs. If you need perfect quality, you'll probably want the QUADRO GeForces.
The only people who really *need* CPUs faster than 1GHz are people who do a lot of number-crunching. Usually scientists. And maybe people who compile their own software, if you want it to compile faster (though the whole point of compiling yourself is to get better performance without having to upgrade your CPU). A better thing to do if you want to compile your own software (e.g., if you use Debian, *BSD, or are a developer), would be to find a high-end *nix computer that you can use to compile it on, with options for your computer.
Don't buy the GHz hype. More GHz will not make your programs load faster, and will most certainly not make your computer much more responsive.
Duh. Intel knows everything about Intel chips. They designed them.
Intel's ICC won't produce code nearly as good on AMDs, and won't produce anything on non x86.
Let's not go around talking about how gcc sucks because it doesn't -- and can't, and never will be able to, unless Intel opens up all of the specs -- compete with Intel's ICC.
GCC is designed to compile code on many different platforms, to unite development efforts as much as possible accross different CPU types.
Never mind. I was thinking of a different technique called "selling short", which is where you try to sell the stock at it's high point, and then buy it back at it's low-point. It's a risky market-timing strategy.
But you don't get to compare hard-core distributions like Gentoo, Debian, Slackware, Stampede, and so one and so-forth -- that were intended for power users who really know what they're doing -- to Apple's OS', which are intended for users who are still looking for the any key.
If you want a fair comparison, you need to compare to a distribution like Lindows, which is intended for someone who's still looking for the any key.
Once you make that fair comparison, Linux has a huge advantage, because you can get it for less than $300 and still have reasonable performance for any common daily activities (you won't get good FPS on such a comp, but it will be fine for picture editing, word processing, spreadsheets, databases, internet browsing, and e-mail checking). Now, find me an Apple for $300 with a modern OS on it, and that performs well, and doesn't require you to wait several seconds for every app to open.
Your right, IP doesn't equal copyright, but SCO has basically admitted that they distributed whatever code they could be talking about under the GPL. Thus, they have to allow individuals to freely distribute all the code they released when they released their own GPL'ed version of GNU/Linux,and freely distribut any derivatives. This means that they can't make the kidn of claims they're trying to make.
Either that, or they are in violation of the GPL, which means everyone who owns GPL'ed code in GNU/Linux can sue them. The damages against SCOX for each violation -- particularly the major ones -- could range in the billions, and would the totality of all of those violations would surely bankrupt them. Anyone inheriting their IP who attempts to do the same that they did would also be in violation of the GPL, thus also liable for billions.
shorting SCOX would imply that people would buy it again after the price plummets. Not likely, since this company, run by incompetent execs, is destined for bankruptcy.
As they are fanatical in their loyalty, just like my GNU/Linux and *BSD users, who are often fanatical in their loyalty to a particular distribution.
If GNU/Linux is to make inroads against Apple -- and, indeed, against Microsoft -- it will be through new users. There are many OEMs now that are offering GNU/Linux (usually RedHat) on their computers as an option, and online there are even ones that will install your GNU/Linux distro of choice (CraigWeb offers to install Gentoo, for example).
The important thing is to get OEMs to install GNU/Linux distributions -- preferrably, a spread of them -- by default. The significant cost-savings will alone create interest.
Before you go off ranting about how $100 isn't really a big deal, yes it is, to many people. Especially college students and those just entering the job-market.
The issue here is that Congress has side-stepped the Constituion. They've legislated through the back-door what they can't through the front.
They have no put a ban on such sites, nor told schools that they have to block such sites. They've said that if the schools don't do this, they won't give them Federal funding. They do the same thing with taxes. You couldn't pass a law criminalizing smoking, but you can tax it to high heaven. This is why Libertarians want states to be in no way dependent on Federal gov't funding.
So, the question here is, is it ok for the government to side-step the intent of the US Constituion. The USSC's answer is hardly affirmative, with a 5-4 decision. Such a weak decision is susceptible to being over-turned. The answer to it, of course, depends on whether you are a strict constructionalist or a loose constructionalist.
Quite frankly, I think that the government shouldn't be able to regulate through the back door what it can't through the front; that mandate should be written into the US Constitution.
it. The fact that you can share your files with all the anonymous cowards on the internet doesn't mean you should
Unless your a religious nut, you have to admit there is no absolute morality. We decide what is right and what is not right. 300 years ago, it was fine for a 40-year old man to imregnate at 14-year old girl. If that happens now, it's called rape.
Society has spoken on the issue of file-sharing. More people voted for file-sharing than voted for G.W. Bush and A. Gore together. It's called democracy.
Btw, whenever the government says "educate people on why something is wrong", that really means "brainwash them into compliance".
There is a varying degree of protection provided for trademarks. The most general "trademarks" (like UNIX and Windows, which are no so generic that they are completely void as trademarks) get the least protection. The most original ones get the most.
Combining two generic ordinary words can produce something that is trademarkable. You could not be able to trademark General, nor Electric if you wanted to call your electric company that. General Electric, as a combination, is however trademarkable. It does not receive protection as strong as something created from entirely original/novel words, but it does receive some significant trademark protection.
The issue here is that the courts have effectively granted Blizzard trademark rights over a generic term -- Craft -- in their business. The next logical step -- and a slippery slope -- would be to give them trademark over the word War in regards to games of a similar nature.
This is very disturbing to me. Even more disturbing is how FOSS projects like Phoenix and Stampede have been forced to change their names and logos.
There are plenty of high quality sneakers available that don't cost anywhere near hundreds of dollars.
I bought a pair of leather/swade boot-type (brown) shoes from Dexter's 3 years ago, and they still basically look new, once washed off. $40 bucks, not a couple hundred. I'm sure the same can be said for sports shoes.
Are Nike's and Reebok's better than non-brand shoes? Probably yes. But they certainly aren't better enough to justify the increased cost. Your paying 400% extra to get shoes that are maybe 30-50% better.
Besides, it's stupid to buy them for other reasons. What if something happens to them? Then it's a $100+ dollars down the drain. Or if you grow a foot-size? $100 wasted. Or if, heaven forbid, you get a little bit fatter -- $100 wasted.
Why the fuck should I spend $59 for a DVD TV player, when I can watch it for free on my computer? Also, my TV isn't going to go with me wherever I go. My laptop is.
People do not want entire CD's by most artists, because most of the CD is fluff, and not worth the a hundredth of the money spent on it.
Most people like 1 or 2 songs on an album, and couldn't care less for the rest. Artists can't deal with that, then they need to make better albums. Otherwise, tough shit. The market sets the rules.
It neither promotes, nor discourages, nor anything. It simply catalogues things and puts them in a database, and allows users to search that database and obtain the results.
It is content-neutral -- as the internet should be, see Lessig -- so it most certainly does not encourage the trading of the RIAA's copyrighted works.
The RIAA has no basis for attempting to undue the agreement. They're only doing this because they didn't expect that people would much rather give him money than they, so now they want to steal what is his again.
The problem is that it is very difficult to time anything on the stock-market. Most intelligent investors stay away from it. Those that try to time stocks or the market are trends-analysists. Looking at porfolios that use that strategy, it's a losing one. Individuals who do that regularly are not investors, but speculators; it's no different than gambling.
Just because the market prices something at $X does not mean it's actually worth that much, or has that much value. Nike shoes are priced significantly higher (hundreds of dollars) compared to other shoes, yet they are most certainly not that much better.
The true value of a company is determined by a number of things, such as book price, growth, earnings, P/E, PEG, outstanding debt, the type of debt a company has, quality of management, quality of products, etc. By all reasonable measures, SCO is worthless.
SCOX has had negative or zero earnings in the last 12 months.
in the course of SCOX's daily business operations, the company is using more cash than it generates...At this rate, SCOX may be in danger of having to borrow money or issuing more shares of stock (which dilutes current ownership).
Positive earnings are needed to calculate a price/earnings ratio. SCOX's earnings are zero or negative, so this ratio cannot be calculated.
SCOX is trading at 10.36 times book value so it fails this test.
SCOX has 0 institutional investors holding 0.0% of the common shares outstanding
Both historical earnings and estimated future earnings are either negative or unavailable for SCOX. As a result, a positive intrinsic value cannot be calculated since SCOX's future cash flow is uncertain.
SCOX's 1 year revenue growth is 400.79% lower than the industry average, which means the company is growing significantly slower than its peers.
SCOX's 1 year ROA is 28.98% lower than the industry average, which may indicate that SCOX has not used assets as successfully as its competitors have.
SCOX's 1 year ROA is 28.98% lower than the industry average, which may indicate that SCOX has not used assets as successfully as its competitors have.
Sounds like a great buy, right? My summary of trend-investing on Wall-Street is simple: If everyone else poked out their eyes, would you do it too?
Tough shit. Freedom of speech is more important than "Blizzard's right to make money".
Your take on IP laws is completely backward.
All IP -- trademark, patent, copyright, trade-secret -- is there for the benefit of the public, the consumers.
And trademark should not in any way apply to general words like "craft", no matter what the context. They can have rights over "WarCraft" etc, but not over *craft. You don't get to say "all of the * are mine, because I have created this naming scheme".
It's no-one's fault but Blizzard's that they used a common word to describe their product. If they had made up a new word (like Orwell made up "newspeak"), then they could trademark that word specifically, but craft is an every-day word, which very naturally describes what these type of games are about.
Giving Blizzard the rights to *Craft is absurd, because trademark does NOT apply to generalized phrases or words. It's just as outrageous as MS' trademark on Windows (which is why their "trademark" is pretty much void, along with that of UNIX).
So? I've never felt uncomfortable in normal suits. If the material is fine, it's comfortable. I usually wear things overlarge anyways (I'm a natural medium/large, but I wear extra-large [if I gain 100 pounds, I won't have to buy new clothes]).
You may get marked improvement past the $1000 dollar mark, but you're still not getting your money's worth, compared to $100 dollar suits. Unless having a $3k suit is going to repay it's cost to you something hard (like quantifiable cash), I say it's not worth it.
Slashdot Mirror
Put an icon for OpenOffice on the desktop. Don't call it open-office, just call it Office.
...and other commonly used apps by home users
Sure, this will piss off 'lites, but so the fuck what? Elitists won't be using Lindows anyways: the person who's been using Macs and Windows all his/her life will, or who's never used an OS before.
On the desktop, put things like:
Office or Word Processor
Spreadsheet
Database
Slideshow Presentation Creator
E-Mail
Internet
Porn
Music Player
Movie Player
File Sharing
CD-Ripping/Burning
Or better yet, create a superior UI from the start. See some of my examples from my home page:
a model desktop
some explanation of the desktop model
I disagree that they are different ways of looking at the same thing. The definition for FS is more narrow than that for OSS. The OSI considers some licenses (like the APSL) to be OSS, which the FSF does not consider to be FS. Thus, in there are some differences in the details of the matter too (though probably 90% of the licenses that are OSS are also FS).
Loosely speaking, Perens is right. For the most part (e.g., that 90%), they are different ways of looking at the same thing, one emphasizing freedom, the other business value. More strictly speaking, he is wrong.
Irrelevant of his obvious dislike of the FSF -- which I disagree with -- at least he knows the difference between FS and OSS. The original *imbecile* does not know that difference. Worse yet, he posted a top-level comment that will confuse many new users into thinking that FS and OSS are two different names for exactly the same thing.
Maybe so, but it produces a big fat zero for anything outside of x86. Nothing.
ICC developers have an unfair advantage over GCC developers, because they know x86 architecture inside out -- they make it. This does not mean that the comparisons between ICC and GCC are unfair because ICC is better.
What it does mean is that it is inappropriate to say "GCC sux0rs".
The term "Free Software" is better than "Open Source Software". Open Source has one obvious implication: that you can view the source. Free Software can be taken to mean either free as in speech, or free as in beer: at least there's a 50/50 chance someone will get it right off the bat. Aside from that, as the FSF has said, once the user understands "Free Software as in speech, not beer", s/he won't get it wrong again. Not so easy with OSS.
The FSF is not entirely happy with the term "Free Software", precisely because it's only 50/50. Some other potential names they could use -- e.g., Liberty Software -- are associated with political movements that the FSF does not agree with and are beyond it's scope. Libre Software would be appropriate, but it uses foreign words, which is confusing.
I suggested to RMS that the FSF use "Freedom Software". However, the FSF had apparently considered that as a superior solution, but decided that they couldn't use it, because Freedom Software is the trademarked name of a company that has nothing to do with Free Software. This is a tragic example of how trademark laws are bad for the public. The public would be done a real service if the FSF could call their software "Freedom Software", but trademark laws prevent it.
So, if you really value Free Software, you should work on two things: (1) Finding some way to invalidate the trademark on Freedom Software [look through legal case history, if you're a lawyer]; (2) Starting/contributing to an effort to pay Freedom Software to turn over their trademark to the FSF.
Something I forgot to mention. Despite the fact that both of these groups have slightly different ideologies, in real-world terms, they both agree -- for the most part -- on what licenses are acceptable, which means that individuals from the two movements can and do work together to accomplish common goals (as most of their goals are common).
It is rather like two different groups of individuals who support the right to choose regarding abortion. One group may support that right because of ideological reasons: they think women should be entitled to that choice. Another group may support that right because of practical reasons: they think that the effects of illegalizing it are harmful. In the vast majority of cases, both groups will agree with one another, and can work together to accomplish a common goal. It is called an incompletely theorized consensus. The Founding Father's had such in regards to their conception of privacy.
At it's most basic level, FS is concerned about the freedom of users. Users should have certain freedoms. See the FSF's Free Software Definition (FSD). The FSF has also published an article describing what they think FS (Free Software) is better than OS (Open Source).
OSS is more about a development model than user and developer freedoms. The freedoms it ensures to the user and developers are geared towards that development model. See the OSI's Open Source Definition (OSD) (OSD).
Summarily, OSS is a superset of FS, FS a subset of OSS. Anything that is FS is also OSS; however, many things that are OSS are not FS. The FSD has a stricter definition than does the OSD, thus many licenses that the FSD deems too restrictive are acceptable under the OSD. For example, the OSI considers the APSL (Apple Public Software License) to be OSS, but the FSF does not consider the ASPL to be FS.
A relevant quote from the FSF's webpage:
How much does it cost to add an extra Intel 3GHz CPU to your personal desktop? Certainly not enough to make up the difference between the Dell's and Apple's 2CPU computer.
In terms of price/performance, x86's are still the best. You just need to add and extra CPU for ?300? bucks (I haven't kept up to date on CPU prcies). So, why would anyone who wants CPU-performance waste the money on a Mac?
All of this obsession with CPU-performance is pretty lame, in my opinion. My 1.1GHz is still plenty fast. More important than a fast CPU is a fast hard drive. Most wait-time is waiting for programs to load, since most ordinary uses of a computer aren't CPU-intensive. And of course RAM.
Spend your money getting faster hard-drives (e.g., 10,000rpm ATA-166 hard-drives) and faster RAM (e.g., DDR RAM).
If your a gamer, don't be fooled by the CPU-obsession. GPU's is where gaming performance is at. Getting a CPU twice as fast might increase your fps by 2 frames per ssecond -- for another $100 bucks. If you're a multi-media person, again, the graphics card (GPU) is where it's at. If you're a casual or amatuer, you can just get the gamer-line GPUs. If you need perfect quality, you'll probably want the QUADRO GeForces.
The only people who really *need* CPUs faster than 1GHz are people who do a lot of number-crunching. Usually scientists. And maybe people who compile their own software, if you want it to compile faster (though the whole point of compiling yourself is to get better performance without having to upgrade your CPU). A better thing to do if you want to compile your own software (e.g., if you use Debian, *BSD, or are a developer), would be to find a high-end *nix computer that you can use to compile it on, with options for your computer.
Don't buy the GHz hype. More GHz will not make your programs load faster, and will most certainly not make your computer much more responsive.
Duh. Intel knows everything about Intel chips. They designed them.
Intel's ICC won't produce code nearly as good on AMDs, and won't produce anything on non x86.
Let's not go around talking about how gcc sucks because it doesn't -- and can't, and never will be able to, unless Intel opens up all of the specs -- compete with Intel's ICC.
GCC is designed to compile code on many different platforms, to unite development efforts as much as possible accross different CPU types.
Never mind. I was thinking of a different technique called "selling short", which is where you try to sell the stock at it's high point, and then buy it back at it's low-point. It's a risky market-timing strategy.
But you don't get to compare hard-core distributions like Gentoo, Debian, Slackware, Stampede, and so one and so-forth -- that were intended for power users who really know what they're doing -- to Apple's OS', which are intended for users who are still looking for the any key.
If you want a fair comparison, you need to compare to a distribution like Lindows, which is intended for someone who's still looking for the any key.
Once you make that fair comparison, Linux has a huge advantage, because you can get it for less than $300 and still have reasonable performance for any common daily activities (you won't get good FPS on such a comp, but it will be fine for picture editing, word processing, spreadsheets, databases, internet browsing, and e-mail checking). Now, find me an Apple for $300 with a modern OS on it, and that performs well, and doesn't require you to wait several seconds for every app to open.
Your right, IP doesn't equal copyright, but SCO has basically admitted that they distributed whatever code they could be talking about under the GPL. Thus, they have to allow individuals to freely distribute all the code they released when they released their own GPL'ed version of GNU/Linux ,and freely distribut any derivatives. This means that they can't make the kidn of claims they're trying to make.
Either that, or they are in violation of the GPL, which means everyone who owns GPL'ed code in GNU/Linux can sue them. The damages against SCOX for each violation -- particularly the major ones -- could range in the billions, and would the totality of all of those violations would surely bankrupt them. Anyone inheriting their IP who attempts to do the same that they did would also be in violation of the GPL, thus also liable for billions.
shorting SCOX would imply that people would buy it again after the price plummets. Not likely, since this company, run by incompetent execs, is destined for bankruptcy.
As they are fanatical in their loyalty, just like my GNU/Linux and *BSD users, who are often fanatical in their loyalty to a particular distribution.
If GNU/Linux is to make inroads against Apple -- and, indeed, against Microsoft -- it will be through new users. There are many OEMs now that are offering GNU/Linux (usually RedHat) on their computers as an option, and online there are even ones that will install your GNU/Linux distro of choice (CraigWeb offers to install Gentoo, for example).
The important thing is to get OEMs to install GNU/Linux distributions -- preferrably, a spread of them -- by default. The significant cost-savings will alone create interest.
Before you go off ranting about how $100 isn't really a big deal, yes it is, to many people. Especially college students and those just entering the job-market.
The issue here is that Congress has side-stepped the Constituion. They've legislated through the back-door what they can't through the front.
They have no put a ban on such sites, nor told schools that they have to block such sites. They've said that if the schools don't do this, they won't give them Federal funding. They do the same thing with taxes. You couldn't pass a law criminalizing smoking, but you can tax it to high heaven. This is why Libertarians want states to be in no way dependent on Federal gov't funding.
So, the question here is, is it ok for the government to side-step the intent of the US Constituion. The USSC's answer is hardly affirmative, with a 5-4 decision. Such a weak decision is susceptible to being over-turned. The answer to it, of course, depends on whether you are a strict constructionalist or a loose constructionalist.
Quite frankly, I think that the government shouldn't be able to regulate through the back door what it can't through the front; that mandate should be written into the US Constitution.
it. The fact that you can share your files with all the anonymous cowards on the internet doesn't mean you should
Unless your a religious nut, you have to admit there is no absolute morality. We decide what is right and what is not right. 300 years ago, it was fine for a 40-year old man to imregnate at 14-year old girl. If that happens now, it's called rape.
Society has spoken on the issue of file-sharing. More people voted for file-sharing than voted for G.W. Bush and A. Gore together. It's called democracy.
Btw, whenever the government says "educate people on why something is wrong", that really means "brainwash them into compliance".
There is a varying degree of protection provided for trademarks. The most general "trademarks" (like UNIX and Windows, which are no so generic that they are completely void as trademarks) get the least protection. The most original ones get the most.
Combining two generic ordinary words can produce something that is trademarkable. You could not be able to trademark General, nor Electric if you wanted to call your electric company that. General Electric, as a combination, is however trademarkable. It does not receive protection as strong as something created from entirely original/novel words, but it does receive some significant trademark protection.
The issue here is that the courts have effectively granted Blizzard trademark rights over a generic term -- Craft -- in their business. The next logical step -- and a slippery slope -- would be to give them trademark over the word War in regards to games of a similar nature.
This is very disturbing to me. Even more disturbing is how FOSS projects like Phoenix and Stampede have been forced to change their names and logos.
There are plenty of high quality sneakers available that don't cost anywhere near hundreds of dollars.
I bought a pair of leather/swade boot-type (brown) shoes from Dexter's 3 years ago, and they still basically look new, once washed off. $40 bucks, not a couple hundred. I'm sure the same can be said for sports shoes.
Are Nike's and Reebok's better than non-brand shoes? Probably yes. But they certainly aren't better enough to justify the increased cost. Your paying 400% extra to get shoes that are maybe 30-50% better.
Besides, it's stupid to buy them for other reasons. What if something happens to them? Then it's a $100+ dollars down the drain. Or if you grow a foot-size? $100 wasted. Or if, heaven forbid, you get a little bit fatter -- $100 wasted.
Why the fuck should I spend $59 for a DVD TV player, when I can watch it for free on my computer? Also, my TV isn't going to go with me wherever I go. My laptop is.
Fuck off, asshole.
People do not want entire CD's by most artists, because most of the CD is fluff, and not worth the a hundredth of the money spent on it.
Most people like 1 or 2 songs on an album, and couldn't care less for the rest. Artists can't deal with that, then they need to make better albums. Otherwise, tough shit. The market sets the rules.
His search engine is no different from Google.
It neither promotes, nor discourages, nor anything. It simply catalogues things and puts them in a database, and allows users to search that database and obtain the results.
It is content-neutral -- as the internet should be, see Lessig -- so it most certainly does not encourage the trading of the RIAA's copyrighted works.
The RIAA has no basis for attempting to undue the agreement. They're only doing this because they didn't expect that people would much rather give him money than they, so now they want to steal what is his again.
I apologize for being such an asshole. I just ASSumed that the person responding to my response was the original poster. My apologies.
The problem is that it is very difficult to time anything on the stock-market. Most intelligent investors stay away from it. Those that try to time stocks or the market are trends-analysists. Looking at porfolios that use that strategy, it's a losing one. Individuals who do that regularly are not investors, but speculators; it's no different than gambling.
Just because the market prices something at $X does not mean it's actually worth that much, or has that much value. Nike shoes are priced significantly higher (hundreds of dollars) compared to other shoes, yet they are most certainly not that much better.
The true value of a company is determined by a number of things, such as book price, growth, earnings, P/E, PEG, outstanding debt, the type of debt a company has, quality of management, quality of products, etc. By all reasonable measures, SCO is worthless.
Check out Quicken.com's information on SCO.
Some relevant quotes:
SCOX has had negative or zero earnings in the last 12 months.
in the course of SCOX's daily business operations, the company is using more cash than it generates...At this rate, SCOX may be in danger of having to borrow money or issuing more shares of stock (which dilutes current ownership).
Positive earnings are needed to calculate a price/earnings ratio. SCOX's earnings are zero or negative, so this ratio cannot be calculated.
SCOX is trading at 10.36 times book value so it fails this test.
SCOX has 0 institutional investors holding 0.0% of the common shares outstanding
Both historical earnings and estimated future earnings are either negative or unavailable for SCOX. As a result, a positive intrinsic value cannot be calculated since SCOX's future cash flow is uncertain.
SCOX's 1 year revenue growth is 400.79% lower than the industry average, which means the company is growing significantly slower than its peers.
SCOX's 1 year ROA is 28.98% lower than the industry average, which may indicate that SCOX has not used assets as successfully as its competitors have.
SCOX's 1 year ROA is 28.98% lower than the industry average, which may indicate that SCOX has not used assets as successfully as its competitors have.
Sounds like a great buy, right? My summary of trend-investing on Wall-Street is simple: If everyone else poked out their eyes, would you do it too?
Tough shit. Freedom of speech is more important than "Blizzard's right to make money".
Your take on IP laws is completely backward.
All IP -- trademark, patent, copyright, trade-secret -- is there for the benefit of the public, the consumers.
And trademark should not in any way apply to general words like "craft", no matter what the context. They can have rights over "WarCraft" etc, but not over *craft. You don't get to say "all of the * are mine, because I have created this naming scheme".
It's no-one's fault but Blizzard's that they used a common word to describe their product. If they had made up a new word (like Orwell made up "newspeak"), then they could trademark that word specifically, but craft is an every-day word, which very naturally describes what these type of games are about.
Giving Blizzard the rights to *Craft is absurd, because trademark does NOT apply to generalized phrases or words. It's just as outrageous as MS' trademark on Windows (which is why their "trademark" is pretty much void, along with that of UNIX).
So? I've never felt uncomfortable in normal suits. If the material is fine, it's comfortable. I usually wear things overlarge anyways (I'm a natural medium/large, but I wear extra-large [if I gain 100 pounds, I won't have to buy new clothes]).
You may get marked improvement past the $1000 dollar mark, but you're still not getting your money's worth, compared to $100 dollar suits. Unless having a $3k suit is going to repay it's cost to you something hard (like quantifiable cash), I say it's not worth it.